sea island fuel barge facility: report of the environmental assessment panel (march, 1989)

7/27/2019 Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility: Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel (March, 1989)

1/39

Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process

Sea Island FuelBarge Facility

Canada


2/39

Panel Reports1. Nuclear Power Station at Point Lepreau. New Brunswick. (May, 1975)2. Hydro Electric Power Project, Wreck Cove, Cape Breton Island. Nova Scotia, (August, 1976)3. Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project, Yukon Territory. (Interim Report, August, 1977)4. Eldorado Uranium Refinery Proposal, Port Granby, Ontario. (May, 1978)5. Shakwak Highway Project. Yukon Territory-British Columbia. (June, 1978)6. Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling-South Davis Strait Project. N.W.T. (November, 1978)7. Lancaster Sound Offshore Drilling Project. N.W.T. (February, 1979)8. Eldorado Uranium Hexafluoride Refinery. Ontario. (February, 1979)9. Roberts Bank Port Expansion. British Columbia. (March, 1979)

10. Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Yukon Hearings. (August, 1979)11. Banff Highway Project (east gate to km 13). Alberta. (October, 1979)12. Boundary Bay Airport Reactivation. British Columbia. (November, 1979)13. Eldorado Uranium Refinery, R.M. of Corman Park. Saskatchewan. (July, 1980)14. Arctic Pilot Project (Northern Component). N.W.T. (October, 1980)15. Lower Churchill Hydroelectr ic Project. (December, 1980)16. Norman Wells Oilfield Development and Pipeline Project. N.W.T. (January, 1981)17. Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Yukon Territory. (July, 1981) (Routing Alternatives Whitehorse/Ibex Region)18. Banff Highway Project (km 13 to km 27). Alberta. (April, 1982)19. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production Proposal. (Interim Report) (April, 1982)20. CP Rail Rogers Pass Development, Alberta. (Preliminary Report) (April, 1982)21 . Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Yukon Territory. (Final Report) (October, 1982)22. CP Rail Rogers Pass Development, Alberta. (Final Report) (August, 1983)23. CN Rail Twin Tracking Program, British Columbia. (September, 1983)24. Venture Development Project, Nova Scotia. (December, 1983)25. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation. (Final Report) (July, 1984)26. Port of Quebec Expansion Project. (September, 1984)27. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation (lnukti tuk Summary of Final Report) (July, 1984)28. CN Rail, Twin Tracking Program, British Columbia. (March, 1985)29. Second Nuclear Reactor, Point Lepreau, New Brunswick. (May, 1985)30. Hibernia Development Project, Newfoundland. (December, 1985)31. Fraser Thompson Corridor Review. (January, 1986)32. Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration. (April, 1986)

These documents are available from:Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office200 Sacre-Cceur BlvdHull, QuebecK1A OH3 Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1989Cat. No. En 106-13/1989ISBN 0-662-56602-5


3/39

Sea Island FuelBarge Facility

Report of theEnvironmentalAssessment Panel

March, 1989


4/39

1+1 Federal Environmental Bureau federal d'examenAssessment Review Office des evaluations environnementales

Sea Island Je t Fuel Barge Facil i tyEnvironmental Assessment Panel

The Honourable Lucien BouchardMinister of the EnvironmentHouse of Carrtvnsottawa, Ontario

Dear Ministers:

The Honourable Benoit BouchardMinister of TransportHouse of Conm:>nsottawa, Ontario

In accordance with the terms of reference issued on February 9, 1988,the Environmental Assessment Panel has cqrpleted i t s review of the je tfuel barge tenninal faci l i ty on Sea Island tha t has been proposed toservice ai r l ines a t Vancouver International Airport. We are pleased tosubmit th is report fo r your consideration.

Yours sincerely

David w. I .ChairmanSea Island Je t Fuel Barge Facil i ty

Environmental Assessment Panel

Federal Environment Assessment Review OfficeCanada 510-750 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2P2 Telephone{604) 666-2431


5/39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. INTRODUCTION . . . .. .. ..... ... .......... ... ... .. ... .. .. ...... .. ... ...... ..... ... .. .... .. ...... .. ...... . .. ..... ... .... ...... .... .. .. .... 2

Panel Appointment ... . . .... . .... .... ....... . . .. . . .... . . . .... . . ....... .. ..... .... . .. .. ... ...... . . ... .. .. ... .. .. ........... ... ......... ... .. .... 2Panel Mandate ............ ....... ....... ...... ... ....... .. ....... ..... ............. ............ ......... ........ ........ .. ... ................. ................ 2Review Process ......... ..... ..... .......... ............ ........ .... ... ... ...... ....... .. ...... .. .... ....... ................. .. ................. .............. 2

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ... ................. ....... ..... ..... .. ... ..... .................................. ... .. ... .. .. ................ 5Existing Fuel Supply at Vancouver International Airport ........................... .............. ........ .... ...................... 5

Westr idge Terminal .... ..... .... .............. ....... .......... .. ......... .. ................. .. ...................... ...... ............................. 5Jet Fuel Specifications ........................... ............................. ....................................................................... 7Proposed Project .. ...... ... ..... .. ............... ..... ....................... ... ...... ..... .. ................... ............. ............. ... .............. . 7

Barge Operations . . . . . . . .. .... ...... ... ... .. . ... . . .. ... ...... .. . . . .. .. . .. ... .. . . .... .. ... ... .. . .. ... . . ...... .. . ...... .. ..... . .. ... .. 7Terminal Description ..... ... .... ....... .... ...... .... ................ ...... ..... ....................... .. ......................... .................... 9Terminal Construction .......... ............ ........ ......... .. ...... .. ...... ... .... ... ... ..... ........ ............ ... ... ......... ....... .. .. ........ . 9Terminal Operation ................ ................. ............................ ........................... ............................. ..... ........... 9

Project Rationale ...... ........................ ......... .. ..... ..... .............. ...... ....... ...... ................ ................ .. ........ .. .. .......... 113. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS.................. .... ........ .... ....... .... ............................... ... .. ..... ............. 134. ISSUES......... ...... .... .... ....... .. ..... ......... ... ............... .... ..... .. ................. ..... .... ... ......... ....... ........ .. ..... ..... 15

Introduction ................. ..... ... ..... ..... ................ ..... ... .............. ..................... ............... ....... ............ ....... ... .. .. ....... 15Pro ject Need and Economic Justification ..................... ................................................... ................. .......... 15

Adequacy of Ex ist ing Jet Fuel Delivery Capacity ............ .................. ... .. ........ .. .......... .... ........ .. ...... ........ 15Capability of Ex isting Pipeline System to Deliver Specification Jet Fue l...... ..... .............. .............. ..... . 16Reliability and Integrity of Existing Jet Fuel Pipeline ................. .......... ....... .............................. .............. 16Magnitude of Economic Benefits Resulting from Further Diversification of Jet Fuel Supplies .. ........ 17

Project Alternatives ........................................................... ....................................................................... .. .... 19Resources at Risk. ..... ................. ....... .... ............................... ......... ..................... ....... ... ......... .. ................. ...... 19

Habitat. ................ .................. ............................... ....................... ... ...... ... ........ .... .. .................. .......... .......... 21Rsh ................. ....... .. .. .............. ...... .. ...................... ... .. ..................................... ........... ........... ... .................... 21Birds .......... ........ ....................... .......................... .......... ........ ...... ................. .. ...... ...... ................... .... ..... ....... 21Commercial, Native and Sports Fisheries ........... .. .................... ....... ... ............ ....... .... ........... ..... ........ ...... 22Musqueam Band ..... ................... ...... ............ ..... ..... ................... .. ....... .................... .... ...... ... .............. .......... 22Recreational Opportunities and Aesthetic Values .................. ..... ........................ .. .. ............................... 23Commercial Activities .. ............. .... ................... ..... ........................ ....... .................... ...... .......................... .. 23

Risk Assessment ... ............................. ... .................. .... ...................................... ... ........... ... ...................... ....... 23Risk Assessment Methodology ............ .. .......................................... ............. .............. .......... .................... 23Risk Assessment Data . ..... . . .. . . ... . .. ... . . . . ..... . . . .. .. . .. ...... ...... ... .. . .. ..... . .. ... ... ... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .... 23Scope of Risk Assessment .... ........... .. .... ... .. ............. .. ...... ................... ............... .......... .. ........................... 23


6/39

Fuel Spill Scenarios and Spill Effects ... ..... ... ....... ... .. ... ...... .............. ............ ... ...... .. ........... .......... .... ...... .... 24Fuel Spill Scenarios.. ... .. .. ... ..... ... .... ...... ....... ........... ... .. ....... .... ........... .... ...... ... .... ..... ......... .... ... ... .. ... ... .... 24Spill Effects. ... ......... .. ..... .... ... .. .. ....... ... ................ .... .. ...... .... .. ...... ... ... ..... .......... .... .......... .................... ......... 24

Spill Contingency Plans and Countermeasures ... .......................... ............ .... ... ... .. ....... ........... .... ... .......... 2525onstruction Activities .. ... ... .. .. .. .... ... .. .... ... ... .... .. .. .. ..... .... ................. ... .. ............. ....... ...... .. ....... . .... ...... ........ ..

Routine Operations... ..... ... ...... ... .... .... .. .. .... ...... ...... ........ ............................ ................ ........ .... ... ... .... .. ...... ....... 25Environmental Management Procedures. .... .. ................ .. ............ .. ..... .............. ...... ...... ... .... ... ... ... ... ...... . 25Timing and Scale of Operations ............. ... .......... ... ...... ............. . ....... .............. .. . .. .. ............... .. .. .......... 26Maintenance Dredging .... ...... .... ... ........ ... .... ........ .. ............ ....... ... ...... ...... ... ... .. ........ ... . .... .... ........ .... ......... 26River Traffic and Navigational Hazards................... .. .... ............... .. .. .. ................ ........................... ... ...... . 26

Compensation ....... ... ... ...... ......... ... ... .. .... .. .. ...... ...... ........ ........ ..... .................... ............ ... ...... ...... ...... ............ . 26APPENDICES

A. Panel Member Biographies ... ... ..... .... .... ..... ........ ...... ...... ..................... .... ...... ...... ... ............................ 28B. Panel Terms of Reference .. ... ...... .. .. ..... .. .... .. .. ... .. .... ... ... ..... ... .. ... .... .... .. ........ ... .... ...... ..... ... .. .... .... .. ... ... 29c. Issues Scoping Workshop Participants . ... . 30D. Hearings Participants ... .... ........ ...... .... ... ...... .. .. .. ........ ...... ...... .... ... .................................. ................... .. 31E. Information Received by the Panel. .. ........ ... .... ... .. .... ... ....................... .. .. .............. ......... .. ... ... .... .. .... .. 32

1.2.3.4.5.

LIST OF FIGURESExisting Jet Fuel Pipeline System .... .. ..... ........... .. .. ..................... ... .. ....... ..... ......... .. .. .. ................ .l ocation of Proposed Fue l Barge Terminal... .... .. ....... .. ........... ..... ... ............. .. ...... ............. ... ... ... ... ..Proposed Fuel Barge Termina l, Pipeline and Ex isting Fue l Storage Facility .. .. ............. .............. .Plan and Profile View of Proposed Fuel Barge Terminal ............. ... ...................... .. ... ... ................ ..Marsh and Estuarine Habitat in the North Arm ....... .. ... ...................... .. ..... .. ... ................................ .

68

101220


7/39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn February, 1988, the Minister of the Environment establisheda three member Environmental Assessment Panel to conducta comprehensive public review of a proposal by the VancouverAirport Fuel Facilities Corporation to construct and operate ajet fuel barge terminal on Sea Island in the North Arm of theFraser River. The proposed facility was to be sited on federallands under the administration of the North Fraser HarbourCommission. The Panel's terms of reference included a rangeof issues that went beyond the purely environmental effects ofthe proposal. In particular, the Panel examined the need forthe project, its socio-economic effects, and its economicjustification. Alternative arrangements for transporting jet fuelto Vancouver International Airport that could meet current andfuture aviation jet fuel requirements were also reviewed.This Panel report is the final stage of the 12 month publicreview of the proposal. During the course of the review, thePanel gathered information on the environmental, social andeconomic effects of the proposed project and held two publicforums. Following receipt of statements from interestedparties, a two-day issues seeping workshop was held in April,1988 to identify and priorize important issues. Writtensubmissions addressing these issues were received from theproponent, federal and provincial regulatory agencies, localmunicipalities, public interest groups, native organizations,concerned citizens and corporate intervenors. Four days ofpublic hearings were held in November, 1988 to allow a fulldiscussion of public concerns about the proposal.The lower Fraser River and its estuary represent a biologicallyproductive ecosystem of national and international significance. The estuary provides important habitat for a diversity offish and wildlife species, including some 34 species of marineand freshwater fish. The North Arm of the Fraser River, whichis the site of the proposed facility, is used by all five species ofPacific Salmon during their inland spawning and seawardmigration cycles. The Fraser River estuary is also the largestand most important area for migratory birds in BritishColumbia. Extensive marshland habitat, important to bothsalmon and waterfowl, is located close to the site of theproposed facility.The Fraser River, including the North Arm, supports a commercial salmon fishery of major economic significance. Inaddition, the estuary supports important native and sportsfishing activities. The resources of the Fraser River are thefoundation of the livelihood and culture of the MusqueamBand, whose reserves include land immediately downstream ofthe proposed facility. In response to the recreational andaesthetic values of the river, land use along the river is nowbeing directed away from industrial uses to include park,recreational, residential and commercial uses. Public access tothe water has also increased considerably in recent years andthis trend is expected to continue.During the course of the review, partic ipants raised a variety ofconcerns about the potential environmental, social andeconomic effects of the proposed project. Two major concerns raised were:

- the effects of a major spill of jet fuel during transportationto the terminal and I or of chronic spills associated withoff-loading of barges at the terminal; and- the need for the proposed project, given the existingcapability to deliver jet fuel to Vancouver International

Airport by pipeline from local refineries and the Westridgemarine terminal in Burrard Inlet.

Other significant concerns and issues raised included:-socio-economic effects on the area's residents andresource users;-adequacy of the techniques and data used by theproponent to assess spill risks and potential consequences;-emergency response capability, in terms of containment,clean-up and fire-fighting of fuel spills;-effects associated with the construction and routine

operation of the proposed facility; and-compensation programs for losses and damages resultir.gfrom a major spill of jet fuel.

The Panel concludes that there is a need for addi-tional jet fuel delivery capability to VancouverInternational Airport, but there is not a demonstratedregional economic benefit associated with theVancouver Airport Fuel Facility Corporation's pro-posal. The barging of jet fuel to the facility wouldpose unacceptably high risks of damage to valuablefish and wildlife resources in the Fraser River estuary.The potential consequences of a fuel spill are mademore severe by the fact that an adequate spillresponse capability does not now exist in the lowerFraser River and is unlikely to be developed in theforeseeable future.The Panel, therefore, recommends that the Ministerof Transport unconditionally reject the proposalsubmitted to the North Fraser Harbour Commission toconstruct and operate a jet fuel barge terminal onSea Island.

The foregoing major conclusion is reflected in the detailedrecommendations in the Panel report. These recommendations include steps to resolve outstanding commercial issuesbetween the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation andTrans Mountain Enterprises Ltd., the operator of the jet fuelpipeline serving Vancouver International Airport. Also includedin the Panel report is a recommendation to expand themandate of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program inorder to ensure broader, more effective resource managementand planning on an estuary-wide basis.


8/39

2

1. INTRODUCTIONPANEL APPOINTMENTIn accordance with the federal Environmental Assessment andReview Process (EARP), federal departments and agenciesmust consider and assess the environmental effects of projectsand activities for which they have a decision-making role.When a project is judged to have potentially significant effectsor engenders major public concerns, an EnvironmentalAssessment Panel is established to conduct an independentpublic review of the project and its effects.In conformity with the provisions of the EARP, the North FraserHarbour Commission (NFHC) through the Minister of Transport, requested a Panel review of the proposal of the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) for theconstruction and operation of a jet fuel barge terminal toservice airlines at Vancouver International Airport. The NorthFraser Harbour Commission, as owner of the proposed site forthe fuel barge terminal, has the main decision-making role forthe proposal. The Panel review was also endorsed by theManagement Committee of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP).The Panel was appointed in February, 1988, by the Minister ofthe Environment. The Panel members are Mr. David Marshall(Chairman), Dr. Tom Northcote and Dr. Allister Brown. Panelmember biographies are found in Appendix A. The Panel wasassisted in its review by its Executive Secretary, Mr. Paul Scottand by Dr. Sarah Groves.

PANEL MANDATEThe Panel's Terms of Reference, reproduced in Appendixdirect it to publicly review and assess the environmental asocio-economic effects associated with the proposed fbarge terminal and to report on the acceptability of proposal. The Panel was also asked to give considerationthe need for the proposal and alternatives to it.

REVIEW PROCESSOn February 9, 1988, the federal Minister of the Environmformally announced the appointment of the Panel. Shoafter its appointment, the Panel arranged for copies ofAugust, 1986 Environmental Impact Assessment, prepared Acres International Limited on behalf of the Vancouver AirpFuel Facilities Corporation, to be circulated to all groups aagencies expected to play a major role in the review. Copiesthe document were also placed in local libraries. An Adddum to this report was prepared and circulated in Mar1988.Review participants, including the project proponent, govement agencies, public groups and industrial corporations, wthen invited to assist the Panel in the identification of kissues and concerns that should receive the greatest attentduring the review and to assist in the identification of requiments for additional information that had to be gathered p


9/39

to the scheduling of the public hearings. This input wasobtained through two mechanisms:1. Review participants were asked to state their key issuesor concerns and suggested information requirements inwriting.2. A two day issues "scoping" workshop was held on April

21 - 22, 1988. The workshop was open to anyonewishing to attend, however, individuals representinggroups and agencies expected to have significant roles toplay in the review were specifically invited. Appendix Clists all individuals who participated in the workshop.The issues scoping workshop was very successful. Workshopparticipants and the Panel members were most satisfied withthe conduct and outcome of the workshop. The Panelrecognizes that using issues scoping workshops as a forum foridentifying and priorizing issues is a relatively new and untriedtechnique in the context of Panel reviews. However, the Panelfound the technique to be very efficient and effective andsupports the use of scoping workshops in future Panel reviews.The results of the issues scoping workshop, along with thewritten submissions received, provided the Panel with a solidbasis for preparing its requests for additional information.These requests were finalized in May, 1988 and were directedto the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation, TransMountain Pipe Line Company Limited and governmentagencies.Responses to the Panel's requests for additional informationwere finalized in August, 1988. They were circulated to allmajor review participants and placed in local libraries.Following a seven week period of review of these documents,the Panel announced its plans for public hearings.

Introduction 3

The final public stage in the Panel's review process was thepublic hearings. The hearings were held on November 17, 22,23 and 24, 1988. The purpose of the hearings was to allow fora full examination in public of all information and submissionsreceived by the Panel and to allow for a full discussion ofpublic concerns related to the environmental and socioeconomic effects associated with the proposed fuel bargeterminal. The hearings were preceded by a request for writtensubmissions on the proposal and its effects. A list of allparticipants in the hearings is presented in Appendix D and alist of all written submissions received by the Panel is presented in Appendix E.The Panel was assisted in its review by three technicalspecialists whose roles were to provide independent information on and analysis of complex technical issues that wereraised during the course of the review. The technical specialists provided input to the review both prior to and during thepublic hearings. The three technical specialists and their areasof expertise were:

Mr. Jack Cawdery - Project Need and Economic JustificationMr. Laurence Solsberg - Spill Control, ContingencyPlanning and Response CapabilityDr. Peter Larkin - Fish Resources and Effects on FishResources

The final step in the Panel review process is the submission ofthis report to the Minister of the Environment and the Ministerof Transport. The Panel report contains the Panel's findings,conclusions and recommendations.


10/39

4 Introduction

"We suggest that if we cannot tolerate the worst casescenario then the risks are too great and we should notsubmit the river to this hazard. "Adrienne Peacock, Civic New Democrats

"The potential environmental damage that could result toVancouver parks along the river warrants a position of nosupport for a jet fuel barge off-loading facility. The VancouverBoard of Parks and Recreation is formally on record byunanimous vote of the seven Commissioners as opposing thisproposal, and we urge you to recommend this unacceptablerisk not be approved. "

Malcolm Ashford, Vancouver Board of Parksand Recreation

"The department has consistently communicated for 14years, a strong concern for the Fraser River ecosystem, andhas repeatedly stated that the transshipment of hazardousliquid commodities along the Fraser River poses an unacceptable threat to the high ecological values of the estuary. "

Mac Clark, Department of the Environmen

"We are reaching a point where we should be asking what isthe carrying capacity of the estuary, and particularly, theNorth Arm. Along the North Arm we have ferry terminalproposals, residential development that is surreptitiouslywhittling away our foreshore and marshes ... "Evelyn Feller, Fraser River Coalition


11/39

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONEXISTING FUEL SUPPLY AT VANCOUVERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORTJet fuel (jet fuel A) is currently supplied to Vancouver International Airport by pipeline and, in limited volumes, by tankertruck. The pipeline system is owned and operated by TransMountain Enterprises of British Columbia Limited (TME), asubsidiary of Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company Ltd. (TMPL).The major component of the existing delivery system is adedicated 16.8 em (6 5/8 inch) outside diameter pipelinerunning between the four local refineries located on BurrardInlet (Chevron, Shell, Esso and Petro-Canada), the Westridgemarine terminal, and the TME tank farm on the north side ofSea Island (Figure 1 .The TME pipeline is a unidirectional, dedicated line with apresent sustainable delivery capacity of 2.4 million Lld. Themain pipeline is 27.9 kilometres in length. The pipeline routecrosses over the Brunette River and travels undergroundthrough Burnaby. The pipeline goes under the North Arm of

5

the Fraser River to Ric.hmond and then passes undergroundthrough Richmond to the Middle Arm of ,the Fraser River. Thepipeline makes a second river crossing under the Middle Armand travels across Sea Island to the TME tank farm. Thepipeline has provided uninterrupted service since it wasconstructed in 1970. To date, more than 8 billion L of jet fuelhave been delivered through the pipeline system.Westridge TerminalThe West ridge terminal (Figure 1 , consisting of dock facilitiesand two 130,000 barrel storage tanks (one of which isconnected to the jet fuel pipeline) is owned and operated byTME. Canadian Airlines International leases one of theWestridge terminal tanks from TME and uses the tank tohandle jet fuel which is purchased from United States refineries, transported by barge to Westridge, offloaded into the


12/39

6 Project Description

AN

ENGLISH BAY :

V A N C O U V E R - ~INTERNATIONALAIRPORT

VANCOUVERJET FUEL

RICHMOND

BURNABY MOUNTAINCONTROL STATION

WESTRIDGE

DELTAFUEL BARGESORIGINATE FROMWASHINGTON STATEREFINERIES ' . .

t SAWWASSEN . B.C. FERRIES .----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -LEGENDRefinery Storage Facility

BOUNDARY BAY

USA

Figure 1Existing Jet Fuel Pipeline System


13/39

Westridge tank, and shipped via the jet fuel pipeline to SeaIsland. In order to meet Canadian specifications, jet fuelobtained from United States refineries is treated with an antistatic additive at Westridge before it is pumped into thepipeline for transfer to Sea Island.Jet Fuel SpecificationsJet fuel is a kerosene product very similar to diesel fuel orhome heating oil. Specifications for jet fuel are set by theCanadian General Standards Board (CGSB) to meet theparticular requirements of operating aircraft for extendedperiods at very low air temperatures. Canadian specificationsrequire that an anti-static additive be added to jet fuel toprevent the build-up of stat ic charge. United States specifications for jet fuel do not require this additive. Thus jet fuelpurchased from refineries in the United States must have theadditive mixed into it before the fuel can be used in Canada.

Project Description 7

Two properties of jet fuel, conductivity and water separation,change as a consequence of mixing anti-static additive with jetfuel or transporting fuel through a pipeline. Conductivity, ameasure of the tendency for fuel to dissipate static charge,increases when anti-static additive is mixed with fuel anddecreases when fuel is transported through a pipeline. Waterseparation, the tendency for jet fuel and water to separate, ismeasured by the water index separation method or WISM.Fuel with a high WISM has high separation of water and fueland therefore, a high heat of combustion . A low WISMindicates low separation of water and, thus, a lower heat ofcombustion. The mixing of anti-static additive with jet fuellowers the WISM and may put fuel off-specification. WISM isgenerally not affected by transport through a pipeline.A standard practice for ensuring that jet fuel transportedthrough a pipeline remains on-specification is to require fuel tohave sufficient "freeboard" (i.e., the additional conductivityrequired to allow fuel to be shipped and received withinspecified conductivity limits) before it is accepted into apipeline. TME has a standard requirement for freeboard whichmust be met before jet fuel will be accepted into the jet fuelpipeline.

PROPOSED PROJECTThe Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC), aconsortium of 14 airline companies, proposes to build a fuelbarge terminal in the North Arm of the Fraser River on thenorth side of Sea Island (Figure 2) at a site presently used fordredge spoil storage. The terminal would be used for deliveringjet fuel from United States refineries to Vancouver InternationalAirport. Fuel would be offloaded from barges into a pipelinethat would transport fuel to the existing fuel storage facilityowned by VAFFC on Sea Island (Figure 3). Imported jet fuelwould be delivered to the airport using the existing system ofpumps and hydrants.Barge OperationsJet fuel would be delivered by barge to the proposed fuelbarge terminal from refineries in the Anacortes area ofWashington State. Barges would be towed north through theStrait of Georgia and into the North Arm of the Fraser River.Sea-going tug boats would be used to tow barges to themouth of the North Arm. At the mouth, barges might be towedto the barge berth by the sea-going tug or they might behanded over to river tug boats for towing into the North Arm.Tanker barges from the Seaspan International fleet would beused to transport fuel from refineries in the United States tothe proposed fuel barge terminal. The proposed barges, theSeaspan 822 and Seaspan 824, are steel-hulled barges whichcarry approximately four to five million L (25,000 to 30,000barrels) of refined hydrocarbon products. These tanker bargesconsist of watertight compartments for product storage andsealed void spaces for buoyancy. Each compartment is ventedand connected to piping for tranferring product to and fromthe barge. Spill rails on the barge decks are designed tocontain up to 375,000 L of spilled product.


14/39


...N

ENGLISH BAY

VANCOUVERINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

WESTHAM .ISLAND

BURRARD INLET

VANCOUVER

PROPOSED SITEFOR FUEL

RICHMOND

DELTA

CANADA B.C. FERRIES .---------------------------USA

Figure 2Location of Proposed Fuel Barge Terminal


15/39

The Seaspan tanker barges are operated under Canada CoastGuard and United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations.The Canada Coast Guard Ship Safety has powers under theCanada Shipping Act to conduct spot inspections ofunmanned barges carrying oil cargoes. These barges are alsorequired to carry USCG certificates of inspection which allowthe barges to operate in United States waters. Certificates arerenewable every two years, subject to inspection by theUSCG.Terminal DescriptionThe fuel barge terminal would consist of a berth for fuelbarges, a dock and associated pumps, hoses, pipeline andelectrical and mechanical infrastructure. The berth for the fuelbarge would be a basin approximately 72 x 18 x 5 mexcavated into the river bank (Figure 4). The north side of thebasin would be constructed of a sheet pile wall stiffened withbuttress piles and protected by rip-rap. The slope of the shoreside of the basin would be protected by rip-rap. The entranceto the barge basin would be equipped with a boom curtainwhich would be used to close the entrance to the basin duringfuel off-loading operations.The dock would consist of mooring and breasting dolphins anda sheet pile wall. A timber-pile walkway would providepedestrian access to the dock from the shore. The walkwaywould support a fuel pipeline which would be connected byhose to the barge for off-loading jet fuel. Pumping equipmentand a small building for tool storage and shelter for personnelwould be built on a platform at the end of the walkway. Thewalkway and platform would have impervious c_oncretesurfaces. A curb around their perimeters would contain smallamounts of accidentally spilled fuel.Terminal ConstructionConstruction of the barge terminal would take six to ninemonths and cost an estimated $3.5 million. Excavation of thestockpiled dredge spoil on the site to the natural level of theriver bank would be the first step in terminal construction.


Steel sheet piles would then be installed, and the dock areawould be excavated, initially from land and then by cuttersuction dredge. Upon completion of excavation, timber pileswould be installed for the berthing area, dock and accesswalkway. Rip-rap protection would be placed on the bankslopes. Finally, construction of the access walkway would becompleted, mechanical and electrical equipment would beinstalled, and the pipeline to the existing VAFFC storagefacility would be constructed.Construction activities in the river would be timed to avoidenvironmentally sensitive periods as much as possible. Allconstruction activities would be undertaken in accordancewith applicable federal, provincial and municipal regulationsand guidelines.

Terminal OperationInitially between one and six fuel barges per month would behandled at the fuel barge terminal. Each barge would deliverapproximately four million L of jet fuel. Barge arrival would betimed to coincide with high slack tide. Prior to the arrival of abarge in the North Arm, a diversionary boom would bedeployed across the mouth of McDonald Slough in an attemptto protect it during fuel transfer operations. The barge wouldthen be maneuvered into the barge basin, and a fireboomwould be positioned across the mouth of the barge basin tocontain chronic spills that may occur during fuel transferoperations.Off-loading of fuel from barges would occur only duringdaylight hours. During the short days of winter, more than oneday could be required to complete off-loading o p ~ r a t ! o n s . Fuelwould be transferred directly from the barge by pipeline to theexisting storage facility. From the storage facility, the fuelwould enter the existing fuel delivery system and be handledaccording to present operating procedures. Dock and bargepersonnel involved in fuel transfer operations would be fullytrained in fuel transfer and emergency response procedures.Emergency fuel spill response and fire fighting equipmentwould be located at the fuel barge terminal.


16/39


TAPP ROAD

EXISTING FUELSTORAGEFACILITY

Figure 3Proposed Fuel Barge Terminal.

Pipeline and Existing Fuel Storage Facility


17/39

PROJECT RATIONALEThe VAFFC proposes to construct and operate the fuel bargeterminal at Sea Island to meet several objectives:- to provide greater security of supply of jet fuel at Vancouver International Airport;- to increase the capacity of the existing fuel deliverysystem;- to encourage competitive pricing of jet fuel by providingaccess to alternative suppliers; and- to provide a convenient means of returning off-specification fuel to refineries.


" .... the uses made of the river and its associated lands are oftremendous value to the people of the Lower Mainland, butthe river is something more than the foundation of economicactivity. It is a feature of the physical, biological environmentthat is of immense psychological importance to the people ofthe Lower Fraser, to the man fishing from the bar, to theperson watching waterfowl in the marshes, to the childpaddling in the pool, the river adds a richness to life that isdifficult to measure. It is a link that people have with thecomplex ecological system of which they are a part, andalong with the mountains and the sea, it is the essence of thisregion of British Columbia, and it is part of what people meanwhen they call it home."

Adrienne Peacock, Civic New Democrats


18/39

I~ ~I

___o __ - - - - ~ o _ g : g _ ol ____, _oi ___ft / t: LBREASTING DOLPHINs ,----n------- __I I I ------: 33 m x 80 m DREDGED / APPRO X. 10 - -

1 BERTHING AREAr ~ ~ ~ - S P I L L CONTAINMENT BOOMItI I I I I I I I I 1 ;SHEET P ll E WAll STIFFENEQ./ '___ ---- _______________ )YlT!i_ ~ ! J J J ~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 ! : - ~ - - - , '

:! ' \ \ ~ -RIP-RAP SLOPES J

R I V ER -

HHWL~ ----==- --=-:: FUEL BARGE :

--=--- -=-\ J~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J

Figure 4Plan and Profile Views of Proposed Fuel Barge Terminal

---


19/39

3. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONSIn fulfilling its mandate from the Minister of the Environment,the Sea Island Fuel Barge Facility Environmental AssessmentPanel was faced with the challenge of evaluating the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project which wouldsatisfy the need to supply additional jet fuel to VancouverInternational Airport in an extremely sensitive environment. Inevaluating this project, the Panel considered alternative meansof meeting the increased fuel supply requirements.The Panel recognizes and concurs with the proponent thatthere is a need to deliver larger volumes of fuel to VancouverInternational Airport during periods of peak demand. ThePanel also recognizes the cost savings which would accrue toVancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) if fuelfrom United States refineries was readily available at Vancouver International Airport. Consequently, there are strongfinancial arguments in favour of the project. However, whenevaluated in a regional economic context, the VAFFC proposaldoes not provide substantial economic benefit compared tothe alternative of increasing existing pipeline capacity inconjunction with using existing facilities at Westridge terminalfor fuel importation.The lower Fraser River and its estuary provide importantecological, cultural, social, economic, aesthetic and recreational values to British Columbians, Canadians, and visitorsfrom around the world. The Panel fully understands thegenuine. deep-rooted concern for the value of the estuary andits reso.urces expressed by the majority of intervenors duringthe review. This concern is indicative of a growing generalawareness of environmental issues and values. As a result ofincreased awareness and much hard work by public interestgroups and government agencies and the creation of theFraser River Estuary Management Program, extensiveregeneration of environmental quality in the North Arm of theFraser River has occurred over the past decade.Valuable resources would be at risk from the operation of theproposed fuel barge terminal. The effects of chronic spills offuel in day-to-day operations and I or the effects of a major spillcannot be satisfactorily mitigated, nor are there adequatefacilities or technologies to protect the environment from theseevents. Information presented at the hearings providedevidence that adequate spill response capability does notcurrently exist in the Fraser River estuary. There is also littlelikelihood of developing the capability in the foreseeable futureto respond adequately to a major spill. In the event of a majorfuel spill, there are no satisfactory means of ensuring thatimmediate and satisfactory compensation can or will be madeat the most critical times.

The Panel concludes that there is a need for addi-tional jet fuel delivery capability at VancouverInternational Airport at certain times of the year, butthat there is not a demonstrated regional economicbenefit associated with the VAFFC proposal.The Panel concludes that the VAFFC proposal posesrisks with unacceptable consequences to resourcesin the Fraser River estuary, particularly in the NorthArm.

13

The Panel recommends that the Minister of Transportunconditionally reject the proposal by VancouverAirport Fuel Facilities Corporation to construct andoperate a jet fuel barge terminal on Sea Island.

It is unfortunate that an environmental review process hasbecome the forum for resolving what appears to be primarily acommercial issue involving the Vancouver Airport FuelFacilities Corporation and Trans Mountain Enterprises.Consequently, the resources of the Fraser River estuary havebecome innocent bystanders to difficult commercial negotiations. The Panel, however, recognizes that the fuel bargeterminal proposal progressed to the stage of an independentpublic review largely because of the VAFFC's dissatisfactionwith the present commercial arrangements for delivery of fuelto the airport. With the rejection of the proposal and the strongpotential for increased demand for jet fuel at VancouverInternational Airport, measures should be taken to resolve thecommercial issues that appear to be at the heart of theproblem.

The Panel recommends that the Minister of Transportand the Minister of the Environment jointly appoint anindividual to facilitate a process which would involvethe British Columbia Utilities Commission andappropriate federal and provincial agencies to:

-resolve the commercial issues between the Vancou-ver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation and TransMountain Enterprises; and-ensure that an equitable arrangement is reached fordelivery of fuel to Vancouver International Airport.


20/39

14 Major Recommendations

Many review participants raised questions about the carryingcapacity of the Fraser River estuary and the role of integratedplanning in guiding development in the estuary. All futuredevelopment proposals for the estuary should be evaluated ina manner that better assesses both their environmental andeconomic costs and benefits. Assessment of any futureproposals for handling bulk liquids in the Fraser River estuaryshould include a detailed project-specific review of contingency planning and emergency response capability, spillbehaviour, potential spill effects, and project economics.All future development proposals for the lower Fraser Riverand estuary should be designed to include features thatprovide direct improvement of habitat with demonstrable netbenefits to all users of the river and estuary. Although programs for the mitigation and compensation of habitat loss andthe "no-net loss" policy which guides habitat management inthe estuary presently exist, there is a need for a broader policyframework for addressing attributable and non-attributableresource losses in the Fraser River estuary.The Panel commends the Fraser River Estuary ManagementProgram for the important role it plays in facilitating thecoordinated project review process and encouraging anestuary-wide approach to resource management. FREMP'sinitiatives have fostered a new spirit of cooperation among

various users of the river and estuary. Defined goals objectives for specific activities that occur in the estuary hbeen developed as a direct result of FREMP initiatives.Panel, however, believes that it would be appropriate timely to significantly expand FREMP's role.The Panel recommends that the Minister of Environment in conjunction with his colleague, British Columbia Minister of Environment, expaFREMP's mandate:

- to include a broader, more active role in resoumanagement and planning on an estuary-wide bas- to incorporate a mechanism for direct public involment in the planning activities undertaken by FREM- to emphasize the development of policy guidelinfor the redistribution of the benefits of developmein the estuary among the various resource users; a- to establish means such as environmental enhan

ment levies, performance bonds and revolving funfor compensation of development related attribable and non-attributable losses of resources.

" ...but I don 't see a real concerted effort to be part of a realpublic process, which requires rolling up your sleeves andgetting right into the community level. And I don't thinkFREMP's got the funds to do that nor the staff. "Wendy Turner, Community Forum onAirport Development

"... it's always the question of finances that I find quiteinteresting. I can appreciate it if you can get the fuel cheaper, Imean the rationale is it makes it cheaper for everybody. Butalways in the cost-benefit, I never see where it actually is, theaccounting of the cost to the environment, the cost to theresidents, etcetera."Wendy Turner, Community Forum on AirportDevelopment

"There is no factual evidence to support the suggestion thatthere is a question on pipeline safety and integrity, and thereis no factual evidence to support the suggestion that there isinadequate reliability of continuous supply over the long termby using a pipeline supply system to the airport."

Tom Doyle, Trans Mountain Pipe LineCompany Limited

"It would open the marketplace to supplies outside of theimmediate Vancouver area, and will ensure that honest pricingon the west coast prevails. The local marketplace, we believe,does not have the surplus capacity to create a tully competitive market. Roughly 25 per cent of the cost of the airlineoperation is related to fuel."Vic Rivers, Vancouver Airport Fuel FacilitiCorporation

"We had a relocation that took place this past summer andthat required us to cut into the pipe to move it, and we foundthat both internally and externally, the pipe was in almost newcondition. So the condition of the pipeline, as it presentlystands is very good. "Bob Virgette, Trans Mountain Pipe LineCompany Limited


21/39

4. ISSUESINTRODUCTIONThe Panel review was organized around nine major issuecategories. Panel members, the proponent and intervenorsfrom government agencies, industry and concerned citizens'groups participated in the discussion of issues related to theproposed project. In this chapter, the discussion of each issueis summarized, and the Panel's conclusions or recommenda-tions concerning that issue are stated. The issue categoriesare:-project need and economic justification;-project alternatives;-resources at risk;-r isk assessment;- fue l spill scenarios;-spi l l contingency plans;-construction activities;-routine operations; and-compensation.

PROJECT NEED AND ECONOMIC JUSTIFICA-TIONThe need and economic justification for the proposed SeaIsland fuel barge terminal were discussed at length during thePanel hearings. Many intervenors questioned the need for theproject and discussed possible alternatives to the proposedproject. Discussion of project need and economic justificationfocussed on:

-adequacy of existing jet fuel delivery capacity;-capability of the existing jet fuel pipeline system to deliverfuel to the airport that meets Canadian specifications;-reliability and integrity of the existing jet fuel pipelinesystem; and-magnitude of the economic benefits that would resultfrom the ability to import jet fuel through the proposedterminal on Sea Island.

15

Adequacy of Existing Jet Fuel Delivery CapacityThe volume of air traffic at Vancouver International Airport hasincreased substantially since 1984, and jet fuel requirementshave increased accordingly. Jet fuel consumption increasedfrom 425 million L in 1984 to approximately 700 million L in1988. In periods of peak demand during July and August,1988, fuel requirements reached an average of 2.4 million Ll d,the sustainable pipeline delivery capacity. On several occa-sions in August, 1988, daily jet fuel demand exceeded thepipeline delivery capacity and fuel inventories at the airportwere seriously depleted.Intervenors at the hearings agreed that at the current pumpingcapacity, the capability of the pipeline to meet peak jet fuelrequirements at the airport is severely strained. TME indicatedthat it plans to increase the sustainable maximum deliverycapacity of the pipeline from 2.4 million Lid to 2.7 million Lidby June, 1989. Additional pumping capacity will be added toachieve this increased delivery capability, and the operatingpressure will be increased from 350 psi to 750 psi. TMEindicated that through further addition of pumping capacityand operation up to the maximum licenced operating pressureof 1440 psi, pipeline delivery capability can be expanded, asrequired, to 6 million L/ d. Twinning of the pipeline wouldincrease delivery capability even further.

The Panel concludes that the delivery capacity of theexisting jet fuel pipeline can be upgraded as requiredto accommodate increased fuel demand at Vancou-ver International Airport for the foreseeable future.


22/39

16 Issues

Capability of Existing Pipeline System to DeliverSpecification Jet FuelHandling procedures and technical difficulties involved inkeeping jet fuel on-specification were discussed in depth at thehearings. Jet fuel is tested before it is accepted into the TMEpipeline and again when it is received at the TME tank farm onSea Island to ensure that it is on-specification. Testing includesmeasurement of conductivity and WISM. Results of the firsttest are used to determine whether or not the fuel hasadequate freeboard to allow for loss of conductivity in thepipeline and still deliver on-specification fuel to the airport.TME reported that there were 33 incidents of off-specificationfuel being delivered to the airport by pipeline between mid-1978 and the end of 1987. When ott-specification fuel hasbeen received at the airport, it has generally been possible tobring the fuel back on specification by allowing it to settle, bythe addition of additives, by filtration or by blending off withon-specification fuel. On only one occasion since the pipelinebegan operation in 1970 has it been necessary to remove abatch of oft-specification fuel from the airport by truck andreturn it to the refinery. The techniques used to handle offspecification fuel are also used at other airports receiving jetfuel by pipeline in Canada and the United States.Canadian Airlines International (CAl) has experiencedrecurring difficulties at Westridge with shipments of jet fuel thathave insufficient freeboard to accommodate the anti-staticadditive required to meet Canadian specifications and to meetminimum standards for acceptance into the jet fuel pipeline.Because of the difference between United States andCanadian specifications, jet fuel purchased from refineries inWashington does not meet the Canadian conductivitystandard, and an anti-static additive must be mixed with thejet fuel during off-loading at Westridge. On two occasions,most recently in August, 1988, the addition of the requiredanti-static additive reduced the freeboard to a level whichmade the jet fuel unacceptable to TME for shipment viapipeline to the airport. Because of the lack of facilities fortreating off-specification fuel at Westridge, CAl sold one batchof oft-specification fuel to an offshore refinery for re-refiningand trucked part of the second batch to the Shell refinery tortreatment. The balance of the second batch is being stored inthe tank at Westridge. Significantly, both batches of fuel thatcaused problems with fuel specification at Westridge werepurchased by CAl from the Arco refinery at Cherry Point,Washington.It is unclear exactly what procedures would be followed to mixthe anti-static additive required to meet Canadian specifications with jet fuel to be handled at the proposed Sea Island

terminal. Concern was raised by some intervenors that specification problems, similar to those experiencedWestridge, might occur in fuel off-loaded at the proposedIsland fuel barge terminal, thereby posing a risk of tyingvaluable airport storage facilities. The VAFFC suggested the proposed fuel barge terminal would enhance the airpoability to handle off-specification fuel without tying up valuafuel storage tanks by providing speedy removal of specification fuel from the airport should this be required.The current procedures for handling jet fuel and delivering ipipeline to Vancouver International Airport are adequateensure that fuel meets Canadian specifications. The Pabelieves that VAFFC and TME should cooperate in investiing methods tor ensuring that jet fuel from Westridge will hadequate freeboard to be accepted for shipment through pipeline.

Reliability and Integrity of Existing Jet Fuel PipelinThe Panel and many intervenors were interested inreliability and integrity of the existing jet fuel pipeline, primary source of jet fuel supply at Vancouver InternatioAirport. TME indicated that the pipeline, built in 1970relatively young and appears to be in good condition baseda recent visual inspection. The pipeline is constructed so thais well-protected against external and internal damage. Tentire length of the pipeline is coated with coal tar afiberglass wrap, and the pipeline is under cathodic protectagainst corrosion. Where the pipeline crosses under the Fra


23/39

River the pipe wall thickness is approximately double thenormal wall thickness, the pipe is double wrapped, and thepipe is encased in a 2.5 em thick reinforced concrete coatingto protect against scour. Underwater inspections of thesecrossings were planned for February, 1989.The pipeline has a record of reliable service with only fiveoperational upsets during nearly 20 years of operation. Theinterruptions averaged four hours, with a maximum interruptionof twelve hours. The routing of the pipeline allows good accessby vehicle for repairs, maintenance and close inspection, asrequired, for all parts of the pipeline except the two rivercrossings.Several intervenors questioned TME on their environmentalprotection program for the jet fuel pipeline and tank farm atthe airport. TME routinely patrols the pipeline twice eachweek, once by helicopter and once by road. Staff whoconduct these patrols look for evidence of leaks or activitiesthat could damage the pipeline. TME is in the process offinalizing a contingency plan for the jet fuel pipeline.A variety of valves and gauges installed on the TME pipelineand tanks play a role in the detection and control of spills.Block valves on each of the two Fraser River crossings can beused to shut down the pipeline in the event of a break in a rivercrossing. Presently, these valves are manually operated, butTME plans to automate them when the pipeline is upgraded.At the airport, high level gauges on the fuel tanks set offalarms when the tank is at risk of overflowing.TME plans a program of modifications and additions to the jetfuel pipeline system and will submit the program to the BritishColumbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways forapproval early in 1989. The planned improvements wouldupgrade the system's reliability and integrity and strengthenTME's ability to handle potential environmental problemsrelated to the pipeline. TME proposes to begin runningelectronic monitoring devices on the pipeline to determine thelocation of any internal or external corrosion, dents or defectsin the line. The upgrades scheduled for 1989 will furtherenhance the security of supply, and these upgrades should beimplemented as soon as possible. In addition, the testing and

Issues 17

monitoring systems that will be installed will make a significantcontribution to ensuring that the pipeline is environmentallysafe.The Panel concludes that the existing pipeline withproposed upgrades and sophisticated electronictesting, monitoring and shut-down capability willreliably supply Vancouver International Airport withjet fuel for the present and foreseeable future in anenvironmentally acceptable way.

Magnitude of Economic Benefits Resulting fromFurther Diversification of Jet Fuel Supplies atVancouver International AirportApproximately 700 million L of jet fuel were dispensed atVancouver International Airport during 1988. Given these largevolumes, small cost savings per litre of jet fuel translate intolarge savings in total fuel costs for the airlines using the airport.VAFFC indicated that the capability to barge jet fuel fromUnited States refineries, by increasing the competitiveness ofthe jet fuel market in Vancouver, could result in average fuelcost savings of about two cents per litre.To reduce fuel costs, CAl (which accounts currently for aboutone-half of total fuel requirements at the airport) alreadyimports about 20. percent of its requirements from UnitedStates refineries using the Westridge marine terminal. CAl usesWestridge under a lease arrangement negotiated with TMPL in1986. This lease currently extends to 1996.The proposed Sea Island fuel barge terminal would give othermember airlines of the VAFFC, who do not currently have anagreement to use the Westridge terminal, access by barge toUnited States suppliers. Analysis presented by CAl indicatesthat barge access to United States suppliers by the VAFFCcould result in fuel cost savings of between $18.0 and $63.5million over a 20-year period depending on specific assumptions adopted about future jet fuel pricing and requirements atVancouver International Airport.Hearings participants questioned whether the proposed SeaIsland terminal would be required in order to achieve the fuelcost savings sought by the VAFFC. Discussion focused on thefeasibility of using the Westridge terminal for increased importsof jet fuel by barge. TME indicated that there is a presentlyunused storage tank at Westridge with a rated capacity of19.9 million L (130,000 barrels) which could be readilyconverted to jet fuel service (an identical tank was previouslyconverted for use by CAl under the 1986 lease agreement).VAFFC expressed concern about logistical difficulties encountered by CAl in coordinating jet fuel off-loading with the arrivaland departure of large crude oil tankers at Westridge. TMEindicated that the current utilization of the crude oil dock isonly about six days per month. TME further stated its willingness to dedicate a currently unused second dock at Westridgeto jet fuel off-loading, if scheduling at the main dock became aproblem with increased movement of jet fuel through theterminal.


24/39

18 Issues

"We who live in this part of the city, know the Fraser Riverbetter probably, than most other Vancouverites. It's part ofour daily lives and certainly supplies a large part of ourrecreational needs: walking, horseback riding, jogging,cycling, absorbing nature.. just contemplating."June Binkert, Southlands Citizens PlanningCommittee and Fraser River Coalition

"First, risk consists of two components;" the probability of anaccident and the consequences of that accident. Theproponent has elected to emphasize probability, whileEnvironment Canada has focused on consequences."

Robert Sherwood, Department of theEnvironment

"Every household on our reserve relies on salmon; somewithout an outside income rely exclusively on this catch of fishand other sea foods from the river. "Wendy Grant, Musqueam Band

"The only statistic that has any meaning is that accidentshappen and we consider that no chances should be taken.The risks are just too great for a small benefit to a very fewpeople. We would also argue that as years go by, the risk willbecome greater."June Binkert, Southlands Citizens PlanningCommittee and Fraser River Coalition

" ... the dynamic nature of a riverine environment such as thatof the Fraser, renders effective containment or diversion of ahydrocarbon spill impossible in the majority of cases. "

Mac Clark, Department of the Environmen

"The annual average number of salmon juveniles whichmigrates seaward through the Fraser River and estuary, canexceed 800 million. Juvenile salmon are present throughoutmost of the year, with peak concentrations in the lower FraserRiver occurring between March and July. "

Mike Nassichuk, Department of Fisheriesand Oceans

"Cost recovery for government agencies, municipalities, thattake it upon themselves to clean up spills from polluters, istime consuming and uncertain. This sometimes results indelayed response, inter-agency arguments, poorly handledclean-ups, unnecessary environmental impacts."Fred Beech, Department of the Environment

"However, it should be remembered that the North Arm of thFraser is presently used to transport fuels, explosives anmany other products up and down that river. The barging ojet fuel in the Gulf of Georgia goes on all the time betweeBurrard Inlet and places such as Whidbey Island, AnacortesFerndale, and a multitude of hydrocarbons flow daily tVancouver Island across Georgia Strait as part of oueveryday life. In other words, barging goes on all of the timearound us both here in the Vancouver area, in Holland, in thGulf of Mexico, around New York and in Japan."Vic Rivers, Vancouver Airport Fuel FaciliCorporation


25/39

The Panel concludes that the facilities required toallow the VAFFC to gain access by barge to UnitedStates suppliers of jet fuel are essentially already inplace at Westridge.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVESThe Panel and intervenors at the hearings were interested inalternatives to the proposed fuel barge terminal. Alternativeswere discussed in some detail in conjunction with project needand economic justification. Many intervenors and TMEexpressed the opinion that the existing jet fuel pipeline and theupgrades to the system that are planned for 1989 cancontinue to adequately meet requirements for jet fuel at theairport for the foreseeable future.Trucking is not a viable alternative as the primary mode of fuelsupply at the airport due to the large number of tank trucksthat would be required to meet daily fuel demand. However,eight refineries, four at Burnaby Mountain and four in north-

Issues 19

western Washington, are within trucking distance of theairport. Trucking of jet fuel from these refineries could be usedto supply fuel to the airport in the unlikely event of a majordisruption in pipeline service.Rail transportation of jet fuel to the airport was an optionconsidered by the proponent. However, the existing railwaysystem does not extend onto Sea Island. Thus, raii transportation of jet fuel would require either the construction of thenecessary railway infrastructure on Sea Island or transfer offuel from rail tanker cars to trucks to deliver fuel to storagefacilities at the airport. This option was rejected because it wasneither practical nor cost effective.Barges are used regularly to bring fuel from United Statesrefineries through the Strait of Georgia to Burrard Inlet. Analternative for increasing the supply of jet fuel is expanded useof the terminal facilities at Westridge by fuel barges fromUnited States refineries and increased use of the existing jetfuel pipeline.

The Panel concludes that the existing jet fuel pipelinewith planned upgrades is an acceptable alternative tothe proposed project.

RESOURCES AT RISKThe Panel recognizes the ecological, cultural, social, recreational, economic and aesthetic values of the resources of theFraser River and estuary to the people of British Columbia.Although all of these values cannot be readily measured inmonetary terms, their importance was emphasized by manypart icipants throughout the review. Many of these resourcesand the user groups dependent upon them would be seriouslythreatened by chronic or major fuel spills.

The Panel concludes that resources in the estuaryare already exposed to a variety of risks and isconcerned that the operation of the proposed fuelbarge terminal would expose the estuary and itsresources to additional unwarranted risk.

Technical specialists and intervenors from governmentagencies, citizens' groups and the Musqueam Band expresseda wide range of concerns for resources at risk in the estuary.These concerns for resources and the various user groups arediscussed under the following topics:-habitat;-f ish;-birds;-commercial, native and sports fisheries;-Musqueam Band;-recreational opportunities and aesthetic values; and-commercial activities.


26/39

_

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1I''

. --

, -

LEGENDMudflatsMarsh 'lUI QU ~

PROPOSED SITE FORFUEL BARGE TERMINAL

SLOUGH

RICHMOND

SEA ISLAND

Figure 5Marsh and Estuarine Habitat in the North. Arm


27/39

HabitatThe biologically productive, estuarine ecosystem of the lowerFraser River is important habitat which provides food andshelter for a diversity of fish and wildlife species. The estuaryhas been extensively altered for industrial, agricultural,commercial and residential purposes resulting in the loss of anestimated 70-80% of historic wetland and estuarine habitats.The remaining estuarine habitat is critically important to themaintenance of healthy fish and wildlife populations. The valueof this habitat and various measures being undertaken toprotect and enhance the habitat were the subjects of considerable discussion at the hearings.The total area of marsh and estuarine habitat remaining in theNorth Arm is 187 hectares. Some of the highest quality habitatin the North Arm occurs downstream of the Oak Street Bridge.Approximately 80% of this habitat is in the Sea Island areaand includes McDonald Slough immediately downstream ofthe proposed terminal, Wood's Island Slough immediatelyupstream of the proposed terminal, and a large marsh on theMusqueam Reserve on the north shore of the North Arm(Figure 5). The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and theDepartment of the Environment discussed the importance ofthese areas as prime producers of food for fish and waterfowland stressed the importance of protecting these areas fromdevelopment and possible exposure to chronic or major fuelspills.Projects to protect, enhance and re-establish productiveestuarine habitat are underway or planned in various parts ofthe Fraser River estuary. A habitat enhancement program hasbeen completed along the shore of Fraser Park; a habitatdevelopment program is planned for lona Island; and habitatprotection and salmon enhancement activities are beingundertaken by the Musqueam Band. All of these projects areconsistent with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' 1986policy on the management of fish habitat. The policy has along term objective of net gain of productive capacity of fishhabitat through conservation, restoration and development ofnew habitat.

Issues 21

FishSome 34 species of freshwater and marine fish including all 5species of Pacific salmon occur in the lower Fraser River andestuary. These fish and their habitats would be at risk in theevent of chronic or major spills of jet fuel. Hydrocarbons suchas jet fuel are toxic to fish. Toxic effects of jet fuel on fishinclude mortality of juveniles, erratic swimming behaviourwhich increases fish vulnerability to predation, sublethaleffects and tainting.Salmon are the most extensively studied and managed of thefish species in the Fraser River system, and thus discussion atthe hearings focused on Pacific salmon. The North Arm of theFraser River is used by all species of juvenile salmonids duringtheir seaward migration and by adult salmonids during theirupstream spawning migration. Information presented at thehearings by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicatesthat utilization of the North Arm by both juvenile and adultsalmon ds is higher than previously understood.The distribution of juvenile salmonids moving seaward in thevarious arms of the lower Fraser River is postulated to dependlargely on their swimming ability. Passive swimmers such aschum and pink salmon fry are apparently distributed throughout the river in proportion to river flow. Therefore, approximately 15% of these fry would travel downstream through theNorth Arm as about 15% of the river flow goes through theNorth Arm. Actively swimming fry such as chinook salmonapparently select and follow shorelines during their downstream migration. Thus disproportionate numbers (muchgreater than 15%) of Harrison Lake and Pitt River salmon fryprobably travel downstream through the North Arm. Juvenilesalmonids including Harrison Lake chinooks and probablysockeye may remain in the marshes of the North Arm andlower Fraser River for up to several months before entering theStrait of Georgia.Adult pink and sockeye salmon have been studied by theInternational Pacific Salmon Commission during their upstreamspawning migration. Up to 20% of these adults may reside forshort periods of time in the North Arm.

The Panel concludes that the North Arm of the FraserRiver is considerably more important to all species ofPacific salmon than previously understood.The Panel recommends that the Department ofFisheries and Oceans continue its studies of juvenileand adult salmon in the North Arm and the rest of theestuary in order to increase the accuracy of data onsalmon utilization of the Fraser River.

BirdsThe Fraser River estuary is the largest and most importantarea for migratory birds in British Columbia and is a candidatesite for designation as a wetland of international significanceunder an United Nations agreement. Intervenors in thehearings expressed concerns that this valuable habitat and thebirds it supports would be threatened by the risk of spills at theproposed fuel barge terminal.


28/39


29/39

Recreational Opportunities and Aesthetic ValuesThe Fraser River and estuary are of recreational and aestheticvalue to residents of the lower mainland and visitors fromaround the world. Bird-watching, boating, fishing, picnicking,walking, sunbathing and swimming are some of the activitiesthat attract residents and non-residents to the river andestuary. Representatives of municipalities, provincial andfederal agencies, citizens' groups, and residents of the estuarydescribed the values which the river represents to them.Parks and recreational properties located on both shores ofthe North Arm are used by residents and visitors throughoutthe year. These properties include golf courses, marinas, streetend parks, green spaces, municipal parks in Vancouver andRichmond, and regional parks on lona Island and Point Grey.The largest property is the newly created University Endowment Lands Regional Park. This park includes Wreck Beachwhich extends around Point Grey from the Musqueam Reserveto Spanish Banks.Public access to the water along the North Arm has increasedconsiderably over the past decade. Land uses along the riverare changing from industrial to a mix of uses including park,recreation, residential, and commercial. Significant increasesin waterfront access are expected over the next ten to twentyyears as municipalities work to maintain and create greenspaces and recreational areas along the river. The proposedfuel barge terminal would pose risks to the expanding recreational oppportunities and aesthetic values of the North Arm.Many intervenors expressed concerns that the risks to thecommunity and the environment would exceed the regionaleconomic benefits to be realized from the proposed terminal.Commercial ActivitiesThe Fraser River plays an important role in the economy ofBritish Columbia as a major transportation corridor and thelocation of a variety of commercial activities including loghandling and storage, marinas, forest product businesses,industrial operations and fish processing. Many of theseoperations have docks or other facilities located on the waterwhich would be at risk to damage caused by chronic or majorspills of fuel.RISK ASSESSMENTA risk assessment of the proposed fuel barge terminal wasundertaken by the proponent to evaluate the likelihood of a jetfuel spill. Considerable discussion at the hearings was focusedon the risk assessment and the interpretation of the results ofthis analysis. Intervenors questioned the risk assessmentmethodology, the data used in the analysis and the scope ofthe assessment.Risk Assessment MethodologyThe proponent equated the risk associated with a fuel spill tothe probability of a barge rupture resulting from a broadsidecollision in the North Arm. The probabilities, in turn, werederived from the frequency of collision involving two vessels on

Issues 23

the Fraser River. The reported spill frequencies per kilometrefor various modes of fuel transport (truck, train, barge,pipeline) were compared. Many intervenors questioned thisapproach. Specifically, concern was expressed that riskexpressed solely in terms of transit distance did not accuratelyreflect the true risk to the environment.Risk is the probability that a defined hazard will occur. Theonly event considered by the proponent was collision of twovessels. The proponent stated that the risk assessmentundertaken did not relate to the design and operation of theterminal facility. The proponent further stated that the riskassessment methodology did not follow the establishedprocedures for fault tree analysis.Determination of the consequence of a defined system failureor incident is referred to as consequence analysis. Theproponent's consequence analysis was focused on the fate ofa major spill using numerical modelling of Fraser Riverdischarges.Risk Assessment DataThe proponent selected data for use in the risk assessmentwhich were from actual incidents involving barge movementsin the North Arm. The restrictive nature of the data base andthe ambiguity in the definition of a "barge movement" werequestioned by several intervenors. The Department of theEnvironment commented that reporting procedures andrequirements for fuel spill incidents are entirely different fromprocedures required for incidents involving other commodities.The Department of the Environment stated, with the concurrence of the proponent, that most fuel spills occur duringtransfer operations, not during transport. Several data basesof actual spill reports for British Columbia, Canada and theUnited States were identified as being more appropriate forthe risk assessment. These data would have given a morerealistic estimate of fuel spill probability.Scope of Risk AssessmentThe risk assessment focused on fuel spills occurring in theNorth Arm during transportation of fuel by barge to theproposed fuel barge terminal. The proponent stated that riskassessment was undertaken to illustrate that the chance of anincident in the channel was extremely low. Several intervenorsindicated that the scope of the risk assessment was toonarrow. In particular, concerns were expressed that the riskassessment addressed only transportation spills associatedwith broadside collision. The intervenors questioned themethods and data used to calculate the probability of a majorspill. Concerns were expressed relating to the measurement oferrors and reliability of probabilities calculated by the proponent.The proponent did not undertake risk assessment for theterminal and associated facilities. Risk assessment is atechnique which enables designers and engineers to analyzedesigns, search for failure pathways and identify potentialcommon cause events leading to major consequence accidents. This type of analysis is used to assist in solving complexengineering design problems by comparing design alternatives


30/39

24 Issues

and identifying failsafe engineering solutions. The proponentstated that risk assessment was not used for such purposesfor the proposed fuel barge terminal.The Panel conclude lhll the proponent' rlak l l l tnmtntle limited In methodology, data 1nd tcope 1nd, conlt-quently, undereatlmatea the ru l rlaka '"oclattd with 1t1epropoudJuel barge terminal.

FUEL SPILL SCENARIOS AND SPILL EFFECTSConsiderable discussion at the hearings focused on the fuelspill scenarios and assessment of potential spill effects thatwere prepared for the proposed fuel barge terminal. Manyintervenors requested clarification on the fuel spill scenariosand asked for information on impacts that might be associatedwith the scenarios.Fuel Spill ScenariosFuel spill scenarios presented by the proponent were based ona simplified, one-dimensional model of the Fraser River whichrequired input data from a generalized Fraser River modeldeveloped by the Institute of Ocean Sciences. The model didnot account for factors such as movement of the salt wedge,eddy currents, river bank configuration, winds and fluctuationsin barometric pressure. Although the model can be used forspills of any size, only major spills were modelled.The fuel spill model was used to estimate how long spilled fuelwould remain in the river and how far upstream the fuel wouldtravel under various scenarios. The high slack tide conditionsselected for the scenarios maximized the flushing of spilled fuelinto the Strait of Georgia. Differences of opinion between theproponent and several intervenors were expressed over theduration of time a spill might remain in the river and thegeographical area that could be affected by a spill.Some review participants questioned how spilled fuel wouldbehave as it moved up and down the river and what its fatewould be after it passed out of the North Arm and into theStrait of Georgia. Concern was expressed about the potential,which had not been addressed, for spilled fuel to becometrapped or stranded in sloughs, eddies, marshes, log boomsand debris along the river banks. Local fire departments wereconcerned about the lack of conclusive information on theignition potential of spilled jet fuel.The spill modelling results obtained by the proponent differedsignificantly from those obtained by the Institute of OceanSciences using a similar, but more sophisticated numericalmodel. The choice of boundary conditions made a significantcontribution to the physical accuracy of the models. The levelof detail provided on spill scenarios and discrepancies inmodelling approaches made it difficult to fully comprehendhow a "worst-case" spill might affect the Fraser River, theestuary, the Strait of Georgia, and resources at risk.

Considering the Importance of the resources at riskand due to the potential for other activities in theestuary to result in spills of hazardous materials, the

Panel recommends that the Department of Fisherieand Oceans accelerate its work on the developmeof spill scenarios for use as planning tools in develoing countermeasures planning and response capabity in the estuary.

Spill EffectsMany intervenors were interested in understanding in somdetail the types of spill effects that might be associated wthe fuel spill scenarios presented. The disagreements over tfuel spill scenarios resulted in many intervenors questioning tcompleteness and accuracy of the analysis of spill effecQuestions were posed about specific environmental concerincluding:- the potential for spilled fuel to be retained in marshsloughs and other low-energy environments whepollution levels are already higher than the main chanof the Fraser River;- the difficulty of removing spilled fuel from marshes a

b e a c h e ~ and the environmental effects associated wclean-up activities in these areas;- the acute toxic and sublethal effects of jet fuel on fibirds, invertebrates and vegetation;-complete recovery time for marshes, sloughs abeaches impacted by spilled fuel;- the potential for a fuel spill to result in a fire; and- the possibility that spill effects could extend beyond tmouth of the North Arm and affect Point Grey, BurraInlet and the Strait of Georgia.

Concerns were expressed about spill effects on recreationopportunities and aesthetic values. The possibility of a fuel sforcing the closure of Wreck Beach to swimming during tsummer when as many as 12,000 people/day could be usithe beach was identified as a major concern. The odour afouling effects of a spill would adversely affect aestheappreciation of parks, green spaces, and recreational pursualong the North Arm.The environmental effects of chronic small spills were nspecifically addressed. Wherever fuel is transferred, it is alwapresent in the water column no matter how carefully ithandled. Burrard Inlet and New Westminster were citedexamples where routine handling of fuel has resulteddetectable levels of fuel in the water. Concern exists for tcumulative effects of minor, chronic spills which wouinevitably occur at the proposed fuel barge terminal.

The Panel recommends that the DepartmentFisheries and Oceans and the Department of thEnvironment undertake more intensive researcprograms to better understand environmental effecof hazardous product spills and the applicationresearch findings to the reestablishment of produtive environmental conditions.


31/39

SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANS AND COUNTERMEASURESGeneral information on spill contingency plans and spillcountermeasures that could be used at the proposed fuelbarge terminal was discussed at the hearings, but the proponent indicated that complete operational contingency planswould only be developed upon approval of the proposal.Technical specialists and many intervenors expressed seriousreservations about the capability of existing spill responseteams and countermeasures technologies to respond adequately to a major fuel spill in the lower Fraser River.Among the concerns expressed about spill contingency plansand countermeasures in the lower Fraser River were:- the lack of active spill prevention measures incorporatedinto the engineering design of the terminal;- the lack of a clearly defined chain-of-command forresponding from land or water to a spill or fire;-apparent confusion among various authorities over whowould have primary responsibility for responding to amajor spill or fire;- the limitations of available countermeasures and spillcontainment equipment in riverine situations;- the difficulty of responding to a fire associated with a fuelspill and the current lack of a fire boat to fight a fire in thelower Fraser River;- the lack of suitable equipment in the lower mainland forcontrolling spills on the Fraser River;- the lack of a designated disposal site for fuel-soakeddebris; and- the lack of a formal agreement between the VAFFC andBurrard Clean Oil Spill Cooperative and the time thatwould be required to move the cooperative's equipmentfrom Burrard Inlet to the site of a spill in the North Arm.

The Panel believes that development of operational contingency plans for spills, fires and other accidental occurencesshould be an integral part of the environmental planning andassessment process for specific projects. The technologicallimitations of spill countermeasures and equipment forcontaining riverine spills raise grave concerns about thefeasibility of controlling a major fuel spill at the proposed fuelbarge terminal. The present lack of capability to fight a riverfire from the waterside is also of serious concern.

The Panel recommends that the North Fraser RiverHarbour Commission work with FREMP and otheragencies to develop an estuary-wide response planwhich includes a clearly defined chain-of-commandfor responding to accidents such as spills, fires, andother incidents.

Issues 25

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIESMany technical issues related to construction of the proposedfuel barge terminal were discussed by technical specialists andintervenors at the hearings. The potential effects of dredgingwere the most extensively discussed. Most intervenors agreedthat the potential effects of dredging and other constructionactivities could be avoided or mitigated through seasonaltiming of operations, good engineering design and practice,and good environmental practices.The site of the proposed fuel barge terminal is presently usedfor dredgespoil storage. Construction activities occurring onthis site would probably not have serious effects on aquaticand terrestrial habitat or organisms. However, constructionactivities could potentially affect adjacent areas such asMcDonald Slough through sedimentation and disturbance ofwildlife. Construction activities would also have adverse effectson recreational opportunities and aesthetic values in the area.These activities should be planned and managed in consultation with regulatory agencies so that these activities would beconducted in an environmentally acceptable manner.

ROUTINE OPERATIONSRoutine operations would occur for the operational life of theproposed fuel barge terminal. The discussion at the hearingsfocused on environmental management procedures, timingand scale of operations, maintenance dredging, and rivertraffic and navigational hazards.Environmental Management ProceduresAlthough the proponent indicated that an environmentalmanagement plan would be prepared upon project approval, acomprehensive plan outlining the environmental managementprocedures that would apply to all aspects of the proposedfuel barge terminal was not available for public review at thehearings. The proponent indicated that an environ

sea island fuel barge facility: report of the environmental assessment panel (march, 1989)

Documents